I just listed to you observable consequences of GAE which differentiate it from your hypothesis.
Ah, I see. So you are not really concerned with persuading creationists to accept evolution, so much as you are with making sure they remain Christians if and when they do.
That clarifies things for me greatly.
Joshua said GAE is “an improper hypothesis that will never be a scientific conclusion.”
Is he wrong about the idea he came up with himself?
Please don’t change the topic. We’re trying to argue in good faith here. Did you even bother to read my post about the observable consequences?
This is not EITHER-OR, but BOTH-AND, arising out of principles articulated here: AAAS: Scientists in Civic Life: Facilitating Dialogue-Based Communication.
That’s what you hope. But if you’re not careful, it could end up being NEITHER or MAKING THINGS EVEN WORSE. We’ll see what actually happens, maybe.
I’m very careful, and always attentive to know how we can do this better.
What do you think @patrick, how have I been doing?
We will. Root for the better end, not the worse one. In this case, wouldn’t it be a good thing if my instincts are right, and yours are wrong?
Amen! I wish that principle would be applied generally across the range of “origins” discussions. The idea that the onus is on doubters to prove a negative is wrong, in science or any other intellectual endeavor.
If arming the next generation with a way to render Christian faith and Evolutionary science as mutually compatible is not preferable to you than just leaving all Creationists as hostile to science … then there is not much that will please you.
Sure… worse than a whole generation of Atheists have made things? Hardly.
On your watch, the scientific roots of understanding climate change has not only been challenged but ignored.
That is not my position.
“My watch”? Sorry, what?
You and your fellow Atheists have had a solid generation to make a difference… and frankly, all I’ve seen is things getting worse.
You are wrong:
I think that you are helping many people who want a deep understanding in science and human reasoning to realize that growth can be achieve in understanding BOTH the science AND their faith/ beliefs. You are achieving more than Biologos has. Keep up the good work.
The article you quote was later analyzed to show that the polling questions had been revised in a way that may have exaggerated the final analysis.
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.